Idea for Homemade Telecine

[FearDoiche]

Hello everyone, I'm a long time lurker, first time poster. I've been looking at maybe aquiring a Tamron Fotovix and engineering a film transport system. What I've read states that that the Fotovix has a resolution of about 400,000 pixels. Is this enough for standard def? I figure it's more than 640x480, but I feel like someone would have thought of this before. Any thoughts?

A little addendum: some models have 3x zooms, whilst others have 6x. I figure 35/6 will be enough for the active area of a Super-8 frame.

[VideoFred]

I did not know this machine....
It's not made anymore...

I found this:
TAMRON FotoVix - 1991 An unusual type of digitizing scanner. The FotoVix converted negatives or slides into NTSC video output for viewing on a TV monitor or recording to tape, but could also scan small objects. Stills could be viewed on a PC through use of a video capture device. CCD of approximately 410K pixels. Quality of stills was reported to be relatively poor. Price, $1149.

If you can buy it very cheap, you could give it a try...

Fred.

[Scotness]

If you can buy it very cheap, you could give it a try...

Fred.

.....with a new hi res camera or webcam in there instead....

[FearDoiche]

I've seen them going on ebay for $50-$100. The reason this machine intrigues me is because of the negative switcher and manual color correction. Unfortunately, I don't think I'm enough of a tech hound to swap out the camera.

[gianni1]

I think a Mini DV camcorder, or a USB or Firewire digi camera or web cam on a copy stand with zoom lens may be more modern and efficient.

The Sniper, is the coolest and most desiriable thing on earth at this time. Dreaming of home grown capture with video devices.... Read on, no flames please...

You could connect the Fotovix video output to the AV input of a mini-DV camcorder for firewire input to the pc. However, it's still vhs - Svhs source signal if you use the fotovix as imaging source.

Some camcorders do the negative video switch thingy.

I've got a Canon Ion RC260 with a slide/neg adaptor, that does the negative switch thingy. My guess it's like the Tamron FotoVix, in that it converts the signal to composite video. It's probably interlaced, with each frame only showing half a field of data. You'll need a video caputure device to merge the two video fields into one frame grab onto the pc

If you can zoom into the super 8 frame, then your video output will show the image, positive or negative. The Ion's fixed to a 35mm sized frame. The results looked good in the early 90's, still not to bad on a TV, but realistically look crummy now. Maybe ok for motion images, but think 1997 era 0.3 megapixel digital cameras with plenty of high contrast, and no dynamic range.

Gianni

[onsuper8]

Have a look at the DIY telecine section on http://www.onsuper8.org.

Clearly there are various ways to skin a cat, and with differing degrees of quality. Strikes me which ever way you go you either need to be a whizz with a soldering iron and tin snips or deft in the ways of programming. Its all fascinating reading nonetheless.

[kjellpell]

Why on earth should anyone try to make the Fotovix into a telecine-machine???? The Fotovix (not the original, but the Fotovix II and onwards), is nothing but a camera on a stand with a diffuser and a light in front of the lens! It has no transport-mechanism, no shutter, no nothing that makes it suitable for use a telecine-unit for motion pictures. When there are so many perfectly OK machines for this purpose already, at a good price, what's the purpose of spending lots of money and time on experimenting, and inventing the weel all over again??? The good machines are already invented, tested, working well and ready to use.
The Fotovix II and onwards are not suitable for this at all. If you have to "do it yourself", get a projector with adjustable speed, even single frame, a condenser lens (buy Roger's condenser unit) and a good camera, and get exellent results.
The Fotovix II etc., is just a waste of time.

The original Fotovix with the extra Cinevix unit, is a totally different story. But then again, this Fotovix was originally designed as a motion picture telecine unit.

[FearDoiche]

Thanks for the response, everybody. I was just thinking that this might be useful for negative stock, seeing as I've heard it's hard to do in a workprinter. Also, as a student, I don't have the spare income for one of Roger's wonderful machines.
kjellpell, do you have any more information on the original fotovix and cinevix?

[kjellpell]

Actually, I still have one of these myself. I bought it around 1989, and the

[kjellpell]

Actually, I still have one of these myself. I bought it around 1989, and the price at that time was approx. $3500. The Fotovix alone can transfer slides and negatives, but with an additional unit, the Cinevix, you can also transfer films, both D8mm, S8mm, 9,5mm, 16mm and 35mm. The Fotovix unit is a big rectangular box, containing mirrors and a "camera", with all controlls (zoom, brightness, contrast, sharpness etc., built into the body). The Cinevix unit that you add on, is just a condencer lens and mirrors built into one small unit that fits on the Fotovix. You need a projector to have a full setup, and you can use projectors of any format. It takes some time however, to adjust the projector to the unit, and you must replace the original light source of the projector with a soft/even light source. It works exactly as Rogers units, and many other units on the market today. I have seen some Fotovix I units on e-bay, but never any Cinevix units to go with it.
No need really, to look for any Fotovix I units today, as the camera part inside is an ordinary 1 chip (1989 or earlier type) with a resolution of around 250 to 280 lines and low S/N ratio. Of course you can replace the camera inside the unit, but then you are only using the mirror parts of the unit. Much better to buy one of todays units that easily allows you to use digital cameras. All such units are based on optical scanning, and the ones manufactured today are as good as this system itself allows them to be. Whatever ideas you might come up with, it won't be better then the commercial units available today. Get one of these instead.

[SuperDuper8]

Hi Folks

http://cgi.ebay.nl/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?Vie ... :B:BN:NL:1

Recently I was looking on Ebay for a good telecine apparatus.
I almost bought one which was ready to run.
I had seconds thoughts, wanted more info but the seller didnt want to provide a sample in MPEG or other format.(which was strange since he used the machine commercially) So I decided to make one myself with a budget of around 400 Euros tops.
It seems Roger's condenser lens is all I need? (plus a good cam)
Can anyone help out with some tips? Links to previous posts etc.

There's some condenser lenses on eBay any idea what type or
shape?

Thanks in advance
Pat

Why on earth should anyone try to make the Fotovix into a telecine-machine???? The Fotovix (not the original, but the Fotovix II and onwards), is nothing but a camera on a stand with a diffuser and a light in front of the lens! It has no transport-mechanism, no shutter, no nothing that makes it suitable for use a telecine-unit for motion pictures. When there are so many perfectly OK machines for this purpose already, at a good price, what's the purpose of spending lots of money and time on experimenting, and inventing the weel all over again??? The good machines are already invented, tested, working well and ready to use.
The Fotovix II and onwards are not suitable for this at all. If you have to "do it yourself", get a projector with adjustable speed, even single frame, a condenser lens (buy Roger's condenser unit) and a good camera, and get exellent results.
The Fotovix II etc., is just a waste of time.

The original Fotovix with the extra Cinevix unit, is a totally different story. But then again, this Fotovix was originally designed as a motion picture telecine unit.

[onsuper8]

Pat,

read the pages listed on www,onsuper8.org, particularly Fred's Smalfilm (you'll have to use Babelfish to translate it), it's really good and gives a good set of principles to work from.

[SuperDuper8]

THANKS!

Am I glad I am Dutch:)!!
This link is superb.

Greets
Pat

[Lunar07]

It seems Roger's condenser lens is all I need? (plus a good cam)
Can anyone help out with some tips? Links to previous posts etc.

What projector are you using?
In addition to a condenser lens, you need a first surface mirror.
Roger uses a biconvex lens with a relatively high curvature radius. This translates into a high value for the focal length of the biconvex lens.
You can use two plano-convex lenses, each with a diameter of at least 5".
You may want to consider two plano-convex lenses with the same 5" diameter but with different carvature for the best results.
When using two plano-convex lenses use with one convex side facing first survace mirror (or projector) and the planar sides facing one another.
Also, use a 16mm projection lens on the Super8 projector. The wider the better. This means a projection lens with a focal length of at most 1".

This leaves the issues of capturing one frame at a time and creating an interface for this purpose. I believe there are ways to create a more stable system than the work printer - this depends on how you choose to capture and at what rate. The work printer does not have shutters and it captures, I believe and I may be wrong, by closing and opening a switch as the frame is being switched. This is why the work printer does not have shutters as it needs more time to 'see' and capture the frame.
A shutter can be used as long as the frame is captured while the frame is resting at the gate. For this purpose, a more involved timer 'one shot' circuit switch is needed. This creates a more stable transfer of an actual stable frame. This is what I am working on in conjuction with a Eumig 607D projector.
On this issue, and in conjuction with a one-shot circuit, life can be much easier if CineCap supports the option of capturing on MouseDown event (in addition to the current capturing on MouseClick event).
The maker of CineCap thinks that adding such a feature can confuse the users. Yeah, right! users who can align cameras and projectors in the business of capturing film to video are going to be confused by such an option!!!!!!

[SuperDuper8]

Thanks Lunar

I was planning to modify my Eumig mark 605D projector for use
with a CCD from the Philips ToUCam as outligned On Fred's Smalfilm
page. Though I do not fancy the idea of a frame by frame capture:(
(imagine the time required) On the other hand it is fairly low-budget
with quality results(enough for my amateur-ish needs)

Is there any advantage in capturing via lenses over a frame-by-frame
CCD scan?

Personally Im looking for the cheapest option.

Pat